(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) This petition is brought forth by the detenu himself challenging the order of the second respondent dated 4.3.2010 in 106/2010, whereby the detenu Bala @ Balmurali was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in four adverse cases viz. (i) P-5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Crime No.726/2009 for the offence under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) F-2 Egmore Police Station Crime No.104/2010 for the offence under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) F-2 Egmore Police Station Crime No.157/2010 for the offences under
Sections 457 and
380 of the Indian Penal Code and (iv) F-1 Chindratripet Police Station Crime No.128/2010 for the offence under Section
397 of the Indian Penal and ground case in Crime No.166 of 2010 registered by F-2 Egmore Police station for the offences under
Sections 341,294(b),397,336,427 and
506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 19.02.2010 and the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on the same day, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while attacking the order under challenge, would urge that though the detenu has not moved any bail application in so far as adverse cases are concerned, he has moved for bail in the ground case before the Court of Sessions, Chennai and the same was granted on 2.3.2010. Contrarily, the Authority has stated that no bail application was made. Thus, it would be quite clear that the Sponsoring Authority has not placed all the required materials before the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction as the law would require. This would vitiate the detention order.
5. Learned counsel added further that arrest card as found in page No.173 of the booklet, the arrest was intimated to the friend of the detenu. On the contrary, in the special report as found in page No.183 of the booklet, it is stated that the arrest was informed to close relative. It is highly doubtful whether the intimation was given or not. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside.
6. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to four adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the detenu has not moved any bail application in so far as adverse cases are concerned, he has moved for bail in the ground case before the Court of Sessions, Chennai and the same was granted on 2.3.2010. Contrarily, the Authority has stated in the detention order that no bail application was made. Thus, it would be quite clear that the Sponsoring Authority has not placed all the required materials before the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction as the law would require. This would vitiate the detention order.
8. It is further noted that in the arrest card as found in page No.173 of the booklet, it is stated that the arrest was intimated to the friend of the detenu. On the contrary, in the special report as found in page No.183 of the booklet, it is stated that the arrest was informed to the close relative of the detenu. It is highly doubtful whether the intimation was given or not. In such circumstances, a clarification should have been called for by the Detaining Authority, but not done so, which vitiates the detention order. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.106/2010 dated 4.3.2010. The detenu, namely, Bala @ Balamurali, who is now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.
(M.C.J.) (M.S.N.J.) 13.09.2010 Index :- Yes.
Internet:- Yes.
ssa.
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, The State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariate, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Greater Chennai, Chennai.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. & M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
ssa.
H.C.P. No.860 of 2010 13.09.2010